Judgment and Order :

1. Heard Mr. A. Acharji, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. H. Debbarma, learned Legal Aid counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. Before this matter is taken up for hearing, this Court made an endeavour for reconciliation of the dispute, but for stiff resistance offered by the respondent No. 1 the dispute could not be settled.

3. Be that as it may, the fundamental grounds taken in this petition for challenging the judgment and order dated 03.11.2014 delivered in Misc. 272 of 2013, by the Judge, Family Court, Agartala, West Tripura are (i) that since the respondent No. 1, the petitioner in the petition filed under Section 125 of Cr. P.C. being Misc 272 of 2013 has withdrawn herself from the society of the petitioner without any reasonable excuse she is not entitled to get any maintenance in terms of Section 125(4) of Cr. P.C. and (ii) that the income of the petitioner herein as assessed by the Family Court the quantification of the maintenance made thereon is wholly unreasonable inasmuch at the time of quantifying the maintenance, the aspect that the petitioner had been maintaining two children, born in the wedlock between the petitioner and the respondent No. 1, has been completely ignored.

4. Mr. A. Acharji, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has fervently urged this Court that the finding on the income of the petitioner on the basis of the oral statement of the petitioner ought not have been relied by the respondent No. 1 as no document whatsoever has been produced before the Court to substantiate that the petitioner, the opposite party in the said proceeding, is a day labourer, the petitioner hardly earns a sum of Rs. 3,000/- per month.

5. Mr. A. Acharji, learned counsel has further submitted that the respondent No. 1 for an ulterior purpose has left the society of the petitioner showing disrespect to the matrimonial tie and started staying separately without any reasonable excuse.

6. Mr. A. Acharji, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has raised an additional ground of objection based on the affidavit dated 07.11.2016 filed in I.A. No. 993 of 2016, where in Para-4 the petitioner has asserted as under:

“That, I am a poor man and a day labour by profession. I am not at all fit for daily working and my income is Rs. 3,000/- per month. I have two daughters and one son. Out of three children one daughter and one son is staying with me and there after another daughter namely Kumari Anjana Rabi Das left her mother’s house and she is also staying with me”.

7. On the basis that statement Mr. A. Acharji, learned counsel has claimed that now all children are living with the petitioner. Hence, in view of such development the order of the Judge, Family Court, Agartala can no more be allowed to continue.

8. However, Mr. H. Debbarma, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has strongly refuted such submission of Mr. Acharji, learned counsel and has submitted that on the basis of the oral testimony of the respondent No. 1(PW-1), the Judge, Family Court has come to the inference that it cannot be denied on the face of the record that the petitioner’s income is less than Rs. 20.000/- per month.

9. Mr. H. Debbarma, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has further asserted that the petitioner, the respondent No.1 in the statement before the Judge, Family Court has categorically stated that on unlawful demand she was subjected to physical torture and being unable to bear such torture, she left the matrimonial home. Therefore, the ground as asserted by the petitioner herein under Section 125(4) of the Cr. P.C. is not tenable inasmuch as the said statement of the respondent No.1 (PW-1) was not even contradicted by way of cross examination.

10. That apart, Mr. Debbarma, learned counsel has submitted that the income of the petitioner at Rs. 20,000/- per month has been corroborated by PW-2 (Bishu Rabi Das), the father of the respondent No. 1. He has further pointed out that the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document